March (2013) our organisations investigations department the [E.A.D] and (CEO) Dr Depre was alerted to ‘allegations of possible fraud, deception, and misconduct relating to the misuse of public donations’. Once alerted we then conducted a tedious, and at times, quite frustrating investigation, within the public domain, and behind the scenes. From (2013-2016) we (the organisation) was provided with countless reams of data, emails dating back from 2013-2014, and alleged misconduct, (relating to deception and fraud).

From 2013-2016 the organisation then set about to investigate these alleged claims. At no point from 2013-2016 did we or third parties locate a single scrap of evidence that backed these claims up. The reasons for our own independent investigation was due to the gargantuan public backlash of which was bringing other (unrelated organisations into disrepute directly and indirectly). The public backlash has derived from what we can only locate 6-9 individuals online that are related directly or indirectly. Most of the names involved have been withheld.

The following data listed below has proven to be false from 2013-2016, which we (the organisation) apologize profusely, because at times we were led to believe that fraud, and deception was ongoing, regarding the communications that were posted online. These communications in the way of (screenshots and copied and pasted emails), pushed us briefly out of conservationism investigations, and into civil actions, which we believed at the best of times, that these allegations were indeed factual. A meeting that was held in relation to the work that we conduct annually bought up the alleged allegations and how we could either prove them to be true or false via ‘professional investigatory work’. From this point, allegations; he said this; she said that; (Etc) were then pushed aside. A meeting was then arranged with the Charity Commission (2015 September), and the Institute of Fundraising, with a further meeting (2016 and communications via telephone)..

1… When founded the charity allegedly illegally harvested donations from street pots without a license. (This allegation has been proven to be false, and the council involved have confirmed that a licence was indeed sent to the fundraiser).

2. Refunds were not awarded to a handful of individuals that purchased clothing from the charity website. (Emails from 2013-2014 have proven this to be false, receipts and PayPal data has also proven these allegations to be false).

3. 2014-2015 charity 1154524 ‘allegedly stole donations via a Total Giving platform donation link’. The allegations stated that charity 1154524, hadn’t given all incoming donations on a restricted UK fundraiser to the Philippines ‘non-registered charity Dogs Mountain’. Total Giving was in fact to blame here, for not closing down the fundraiser which they have confirmed. The reason why charity 1154524 were not made aware of incoming money was because PayPal does not state where that income is coming from. PayPal only confirms that an ‘amount has been delivered in the PayPal account, and who from, but doesn’t confirm which ‘titled platform’. Allegation is false.

4. The British charity allegedly didn’t provide all funding raised to the Romanian charity identified as: Adapostul de caini din Baia Mare. PayPal data has proven this allegation to be false. The charity provided the relevant funding, however ‘didn’t continue with their promises of providing blankets, food, cover Etc or a visit’. Charity 1154524 couldn’t keep their promise back in (2014) because other shelters were in need too. Furthermore the charity had exceeded their (2014) expenditure totaling £9,066. Charity 1154524 did not commit an illegal activity. See link here: http://forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/find-charities/

5. 2013 an image of actor Peter Egan was posted onto the main charities webpage and Facebook page. This allegation is factual. However the ‘allegations that stated the image was posted to harvest donations was false’. Mr Egan demanded a ‘trial by Twitter of which the charity refused to answer questions. This allegation is factual. However Mr Egan was asked to phone and/or email – which Mr Egan refused to do. Mr Egan an no point explained why he was at the charities demonstration, nor did he understand that the photos belonging to the charity could be posted. Traces online do actually show Mr Egan’s images being used to raise funds – see link hereto: http://www.ourdisappearingplanet.com/ the link is also advertised on Mr Egans site hereto http://www.peter-egan.co.uk/page_2157999.html

6. An allegation was made that Mme Brown, the then director of charity 1154524 hadn’t visited South Korea. The visit was confirmed. Donations raised for this visit were all legitimate. Skype records prove Mme Brown did visit, and the allegations that Mme Brown didn’t visit are in fact false

Points 1-6 have been extensively investigated and verified by all parties, councils, the charity, registered charities, non-registered charities, and individuals. Furthermore we have proof to back these claims up. Proof of where the communications derived from, telephone records, emails and communications from the Total Giving and PayPal platform.

From 2015-2016 we was then sent allegations that charity 1154524 stole donations totaling $80,000 GBP that was raised for the individual identified as Mrs Yang Xiaoyun, of China, Tianjin. The following data below is factual.

1. June 2015 Ms Ling opened and created a Total Giving fundraiser for Mrs Yang Xiaoyun. Ms Ling placed into that platform Mrs Yang Xiaoyun’s images, with brief description of ongoing problems. Data confirms that Ms Ling implemented the images into that platform. (fact).

2. August 2015 charity 1154524 then began receiving large amounts of donations of which was primarily due to various (unidentified individuals) sharing the platform link, during the June, Chinese YuLin festival. (fact).

3. After contacting trustees it has emerged that the charity was only going on Ms Lings say so, her own concerns, and why she believed setting the fundraiser up was necessary. (fact).

4. Ms Ling then retired from the charity at some time during October 2015 after ‘alleged re-naming of the fundraiser. Communications broke down between Ms Ling and the British charity resulting in the charity being left with no direct communication to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun. (fact).

5. Donations continued to roll in from June to December 2015. the charity stated that they would try to send to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun, food, veterinary help, and donations. Despite the fact they were working with little information on and about Mrs Yang Xiaoyun due to Ms Ling retiring from the charity. (fact).

6. Mrs Yang Xiaoyun was then visited by the charity and trustee (Aug-Sep 2015). Mrs Yang Xiaoyun was handed a years rent for an undisclosed address. Further to this Mrs Yang Xiaoyun was handed via various transactions public donations before and after the visit totaling £12.000GBP. (fact). However it’s been alleged that a total of £15,000 was given.

8. The charity then reported their findings back to the Charity Commission as instructed (fact).

9. The Charity Commission then ‘strictly advised’ that Mrs Yang Xiaoyun set up a banking account for the fund of £80.000 to be deposited, Mrs Yang still hasn’t complied with this polite offer instructed by the Charities Commission. (fact).

10. Unfortunately due to the reams of data coming in from unrelated Chinese rescuers, and what the charity themselves witnessed – the fund was ‘allegedly frozen’ (factual to some degree).

The video above is allegedly all innocent within those calling allegations. Translated into (real Mandarin) which will be within article no 1-5 it shows and proves exactly what happened that day. The images in the video also show evidence of (abuse, neglect, hoarding, poor animal husbandry, and dead, diseased animals laying on the premises.

Further Evidence:

1. Following the events that relate to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun, Mr Andrew Penman of the Daily Mirror was asked by Mr Peter Egan and Dr Daniel Allen to conduct an investigation into ‘fraud’. The reporter then published the following article (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dog-charity-cash-mystery-animal-6941593) – of which doesn’t prove under any circumstances that the charity 1154524 defrauded Mrs Yang Xiaoyun out of any money whatsoever, or anyone for that matter. (fact).

2. Mr Andrew Penman and Dr Allen then stated that the Charities Commission were investigating the British charity 1154524 for alleged fraud. On contacting the Charities Commission back in September and December 2015, as well as communicating and telephoning the commission. No investigation has been confirmed as going ahead whatsoever. (fact).

3. British charity 1154524 offered Mrs Yang Xiaoyun food vouchers, instead of money. This seems to have either 1. been ignored, 2. not communicated properly to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun, or refused by Mrs Yang Xiaoyun. (fact).

4. The Charity Commission have categorically stated (February 2016), “in the interests of public transparency, and the findings relating to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun’s yard. Its in public’s and charities interests to ensure that any-money raised, is provided for the reasons it was raised for”. The Commission confirmed the charities concerns being; the number of animals that were allegedly rescued (not on the premises), no cats that were allegedly rescued from the YuLin festival; hoarding; neglect; abuse Etc. (fact).

5. The Charities Commission have ‘confirmed’ that all funds raised (for Mrs Yang Xiaoyun) remain in the charities bank. Funds will not under-any-circumstances be administered to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun until she establishes a banking account herself, and proves to the charity where the animals that she rescued from YuLin are, which is what the public provided funding for.

The following data above focuses on the ‘alleged allegation of fraud, deception and misuse of public funding’s’, and nothing else.

Conclusion: The Charities Commission, ourselves, requests via the FOIA, and communications to various Chinese agencies have proven that no fraud, or deception is ongoing. Until proven otherwise we (International Animal Rescue Foundation) wish to make a public and frank apology to charity 1154524 for insinuating and agreeing that fraud/deception Etc was ongoing. I.A.R.F does not under any circumstances have any relation to the charity 1154524 nor do we want relations either now or in the future.

Members of the public that want these claims verified can contact the agencies above for further clarification (or the charity themselves). Furthermore a visit to the charity in London to view bookkeeping which is a term set out under the HMRC has located no wrong doing. British charity No To Dog Meat (WPDCMT) are fully registered as seen hereto: http://forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/find-charities/

The following five part (informal article) has been printed due to the mass online campaign that is being run by various individuals from the United Kingdom, United States, Holland, France and Eastern Europe. The online campaign has in the past 3-4 weeks been asked by ourselves to provide (proof of their allegations). When asking for proof to try and bring the public fact or false information we and the main (CEO) was insulted, blocked, threatened, intimated, individuals not related to us were threatened, and intimidated, and images were stolen, defaced, subsequently being named as ‘frauds ourselves’. The only question that was asked was listed below highlighted for your information. Does this question sound unreasonable to you?

“Please would you be most kind to show proof of your allegations, or evidence to back your claims up that prove the charity in question has committed an act of fraud, historically or to-date”?

To date not a single individual that has plastered all over Twitter, and Facebook have shown a scrap of evidence. the only data they show is “maybes, if’s, buts, well’s, or allegations”. When we confronted the individuals calling fowl here, they stated that they had the evidence and was keeping it for the Charities Commission. However when one goes over their postings on Twitter, it clearly shows that regardless of whether they have evidence or not, they’ll still post whatever they like.

Peter Egan has been asked over 17 times to produce evidence relating to his allegation that the British charity above are defrauding the public. We’ll not post all 17 screenshots but do ask that you stay tuned to the actual site to see if any response is ever given.